Oops sorry, i will put it in not so technical form. People who always use JPG mode are better just to ignore this post.

These 4 histograms represent the structure of each resulting RAW file.

1. On X axis we have level of signal for every pixel on the sensor. It has value from 0 to 4095 what actually represents a 12bit nature of Pentax RAW file.
2. On Y axis we have total number of pixels for corresponding level of signals.

3. Every color has an own representation on the resulting histogram accordingly how it is in the resulting RAW file

4. Actually what we see is a “pure” 12bit histogram without any post processing. Remember that sensor has some number of green pixels, and less number of red and blue ones. Raw processing software interpolates it to normal RGB pixels later on.

Ok. Now I will try to explain what the results mean.

The standard axiom is that RAW file structure does not depend on a WB preset inside of a camera and affects only its header. Actually it means that you can ignore WB settings during the shooting and can adjust it later on in post processing software.

However the differences between histograms proves that it is not so for RED part of Pentax sensor and actually brightness level of all RED photo-sites depends on WB preset even if we use RAW mode.

It actually affects post processing and for that all software which does not know about such behavior (Adobe as an instance) resulting colors will be different from expecting results.
---------------------------------------

The bigger treat is another. It seems that under certain conditions RED channel can be overexposed in case you have wrong settings in your camera for WB even if you use RAW mode!!!! This shall be checked. I did not do any tests myself. I just posted what I found to be quite interesting to share.
---------------------------------------

The ISO test showing that in camera processing actually uses software amplifying instead of hardware amplifying to get ISO higher than 800. Obviously it means that there is no need to use ISO 1600 and 3200 if you shoot in RAW mode. You can get better results in your 3rd party converter.

Thanks for sharing, this is very interesting. Are these tests from a K100D? I thought only Nikons did color preconditioning but that looks like what is happening here. I guess they're the only ones to advertise it.

I'm surprised by the ISO 1600/3200 results, but it does look like they're just doubling the x-values without any interpolation. If they have some preconditioning circuits before the analog to digital conversion (as the first set of graphs tends to imply), it seems like they would be able to do the boosting there. I'd try to test this conclusion with a real world example but I don't have a pentax yet.

btw, wouldn't this also imply that the dynamic range at ISO 3200 is 1/4 of what it is at ISO 800?

btw, wouldn't this also imply that the dynamic range at ISO 3200 is
1/4 of what it is at ISO 800?

That's the implication and expected outcome regardless of method used to achieve the higher ISO settings, it's going to either be clipped or contain noise. However the notion of shooting at ISO800 and pushing in post processing later disregards the fact that you would then need to compensate by underexposing two stops to attain higher shutter speeds for a given aperture and lighting, frankly I'd rather dial in ISO3200.

2. The scene is nothing special but light is incandescent lamp was used. I think that subject is not much interesting for such experiments.
3. It affects also Blue part as well. It is confirmed from the forum

4. It looks like confirmed that overexposure can be a problem. I did not see yet any real example

5. I do not think that high ISO (1600+)is a good idea in anyway after seeing pure RAW histogram.

btw, wouldn't this also imply that the dynamic range at ISO 3200 is
1/4 of what it is at ISO 800?

The part above I don't understand... I think you have to test this first, I don't dare to guess what that is retained in the shadows in an underexposed ISO800 picture. I'm not at all sure the DR is shrunken to "1/4". What does that mean btw? Usually we count DR in exposure stops... Hey w, can you elaborate a little? I can imagine the opposite: In practise you might get better DR as underexposing probably holds the highlights better. What do you think?

Do remember though the earlier posts on this topic where we learned that ISO1600 and ISO3200 is nothing but software stretched products. To my eyes it seemed as the EV compensation in the raw processor made a better job than the camera.

That's the implication and expected outcome regardless of method
used to achieve the higher ISO settings, it's going to either be
clipped or contain noise. However the notion of shooting at ISO800
and pushing in post processing later disregards the fact that you
would then need to compensate by underexposing two stops to attain
higher shutter speeds for a given aperture and lighting, frankly
I'd rather dial in ISO3200.

I wouldn't. See above. As a sidenote I don't really want to use ISO1600 or ISO3200 (or ISO800 underexposed) at all... but when forced I can just as well stay with ISO800 and underexpose to retain highlights and get (maybe, possible) less banding in the resulting picture.

1. It is DS on tripod
2. The scene is nothing special but light is incandescent lamp was
used. I think that subject is not much interesting for such
experiments.

I would like to think he took pictures of a grey card in controlled light... Ordinary bulbs or "daylight" bulbs? No colors in the subject please if we should look at a histogram...

3. It affects also Blue part as well. It is confirmed from the forum
4. It looks like confirmed that overexposure can be a problem. I
did not see yet any real example
5. I do not think that high ISO (1600+)is a good idea in anyway
after seeing pure RAW histogram.

May be it is so. Or it was jus a wall. But anyway fact is the fact. In camera WB affects RAW file on deep enough level.

I would like to think he took pictures of a grey card in controlled light... >
Ordinary bulbs or "daylight" bulbs? No colors in the subject please if we >
should look at a histogram...

3. It affects also Blue part as well. It is confirmed from the forum
4. It looks like confirmed that overexposure can be a problem. I
did not see yet any real example
5. I do not think that high ISO (1600+)is a good idea in anyway
after seeing pure RAW histogram.

The part above I don't understand... I think you have to test this
first, I don't dare to guess what that is retained in the shadows
in an underexposed ISO800 picture. I'm not at all sure the DR is
shrunken to "1/4". What does that mean btw? Usually we count DR in
exposure stops... Hey w, can you elaborate a little? I can imagine
the opposite: In practise you might get better DR as underexposing
probably holds the highlights better. What do you think?
Do remember though the earlier posts on this topic where we learned
that ISO1600 and ISO3200 is nothing but software stretched
products. To my eyes it seemed as the EV compensation in the raw
processor made a better job than the camera.

That's true, you can theorize all you want, but what really matter is the results. I also would not assume either of the two of vortout's conclusions are true of the K10D until it is tested (completely new sensor and processing). Until I get my K10D though, I can only guess and hope it helps to pass the time

I shouldn't have said the dynamic range is shrunken to 1/4. Keep in mind that I'm only guessing based on what I see in the graphs, I don't actually know anything, and I have never used a pentax. It looks to me like the upper 3/4 of the histogram at ISO3200 is discarded. This is a 12-bit linear histogram though so in a normal histogram (the kind in photoshop), that would correspond to losing two stops dynamic range in the highlights.

This would imply to me that (and I'm still guessing here) underexposing by two stops (set -2ev) and using ISO 800 will give you an extra two stops of highlight detail without increasing the amount of noise. A RAW converter is also likely to do a better job of interpolating. Shooting at ISO3200 wouldn't give you any less noise than ISO800 since the sensor doesn't "expose" these two cases differently.

I didn't see the earlier post you referred to. Like so many others, I came to this forum recently when I found out about the K10D. Then I found out about limited lenses, pancake lenses, and now I have LBA and no camera. Pretty pathetic.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

Latest buying guides

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.